1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to wearable technology, imaging devices, and privacy.
Potential Benefits and Risks from Ubiquitous Wearable Imaging Devices
We are in a time of rapid technological progress in the development of wearable technology. There are numerous potential benefits from new developments in wearable technology including: more convenient and novel methods of access to information; new modes of communication; improved fitness, ambulatory motion capture, and enhanced sports performance; better physiological monitoring, medical diagnostics, and health outcomes; improved caloric intake monitoring, nutrition, and weight management; enhanced security and safety; new forms of entertainment and social interaction; and innovations in augmented reality, robotics, and telepresence.
Part of this technological progress in wearable technology is the development of wearable imaging devices. Although there are many potential benefits from widespread use of wearable imaging devices, there are also potential risks including the potential erosion of people's privacy. Some people dismiss concerns about potential privacy erosion by wearable technology as over-reactive “wearanoia” [heightened anxiety about wearable technology]. They note that wearable imaging devices come from the continued evolution of pervasive imaging technologies that began with hand-held cameras and has progressed to imaging-capable cell phones. However, while mobile imaging devices such as cell phones and digital cameras are already very common, wearable imaging devices are qualitatively different in some respects.
A first difference is that the use of cell phones and digital cameras for photography is generally accompanied by prominent and easily-recognized visual patterns of body-device motion (such as raising a cell phone up near one's eyes) and/or distinctive sounds (such as a mechanical or virtual “shutter click” sound). However, the activation of wearable imaging devices by voice commands, gentle taps, or subtle eye movements can be much less noticeable. Early models of wearable imaging devices may include a small light or sound cue that indicates when active imaging is occurring, but will such cues be as noticeable as those that are now used for cameras? Will such cues be mandatory for all future wearable imaging devices?
A second difference is that the video imaging functions of cell phones and cameras are generally not left on for long periods of time. However, due to the information access functionality of next generation wearable imaging devices, such devices will likely be left on for long periods of time. It is true that surveillance cameras are already common in public buildings, on major roadways, and throughout urban areas. It is also true that many of these surveillance cameras are left on for long periods of time. However, as widespread as surveillance cameras are, they are not everywhere that people are. Surveillance cameras remain uncommon in private homes, many rural settings, and public rooms where privacy is expected. In contrast, wearable imaging devices can become as ubiquitous as people.
For these reasons, wearable imaging devices have already generated controversy. There are many potential benefits from widespread use of next generation wearable imaging devices, but such wearable imaging devices also have considerable potential to erode everyone's privacy. Some people are very enthusiastic about how they can personally benefit from a wearable imaging device. Some people are concerned about how their privacy can be eroded when other people start constantly wearing such imaging devices.
This debate concerning conflicting rights with respect to wearable imaging devices is starting to become active in the formal arena of public policy and law, as well as in the informal arena of public manners and cultural norms. Some businesses and governments have already adopted policies which restrict the use of wearable imaging devices in selected locations (such as casinos) or during selected activities (such as driving). However, the wheels of public policy and legislation generally move slowly relative to the engine of technological development. It can take years for political processes to sort out an acceptable response to the challenges raised by new technology, especially when there are strong views on both sides of an issue. Also sometimes policy or legislative solutions to technological challenges are blunt instruments that are not ideal for dealing with the nuances and complexities of various situations.
For these reasons, it would be useful if there were a technology solution to the potential erosion of privacy by ubiquitous wearable imaging devices, instead of relying exclusively on a policy and legislative solution. It would be useful if there were a privacy-enhancing technology that would give people who do not want their privacy eroded another option in how to respond to the rise of ubiquitous wearable imaging devices. Specifically, it would be useful if there were a wearable device for disrupting unwelcome photography. That is the motivation for this invention.
The invention that is disclosed herein is a wearable device and method for disrupting unwelcome photography. This invention provides people with a new technology option that can actually enhance their privacy. This invention can provide people with a technology option that levels the playing field with respect to new wearable imaging technologies that may otherwise erode people's privacy. Giving people the options of both such technologies can help us as a society to gain the benefits from new types of wearable technology without losing the benefits of personal privacy.
There are some devices for disrupting photography in the prior art. Some of these devices prevent unauthorized recording of movies by including confounding images in movie projections that are only visible to recording devices. Some of these devices are limited to scanning and disrupting device operation in a fixed location, such as in a movie theater or corporate R&D building. Some of these devices only work in low ambient light conditions (not bright sunlight) or only for still photography. Some of these devices use high-power radiant energy emissions for military applications that would not be safe for use in public areas. Some of these devices use electromagnetic jamming signals that would not be allowed in many jurisdictions. Most of these devices have such significant power requirements that they would not work for long-term use as a wearable device. The ideal technological solution should be wearable, energy-efficient, safe, legal, effective in bright ambient light, affordable, and not-too-horrific in appearance.
None of the devices in the prior art are well-suited for addressing the pending proliferation of ubiquitous wearable imaging devices. There remains a need for a good wearable device for disrupting unwelcome photography. To be sure, the development of such a device is a challenging technological problem. The interaction between a wearable imaging device and a person within its field of view is complex. However, the wearable device for disrupting unwelcome photography that is disclosed herein has the potential to be wearable, energy-efficient, safe, legal, effective in bright ambient light, affordable, and not-too-horrific in appearance. Hopefully it will help us as a society to gain the benefits from new types of wearable technology without losing the benefits of personal privacy.
2. Categorization and Review of the Prior Art
Before disclosing this invention, it is useful to thoroughly review the related prior art. This is done in the following categorization and review of the relevant prior art. Categorizing relevant examples of prior art into discrete categories is challenging. Some examples in the prior art span multiple categories. Also, no categorization scheme is perfect. However, even an imperfect categorization scheme can serve a useful purpose for reviewing a voluminous body of prior art. Towards this end, 170 examples of relevant prior art have been grouped into four general groups and then classified into more-specific categories within those four general groups.
The four general groups are: (A) devices and methods which can detect and modify/disrupt the operation of an imaging device, but which require the cooperation of the manufacturer and/or user of the imaging device; (B) devices and methods which can detect an imaging device, but which do not offer an integrated method for modifying/disrupting the operation of the imaging device; (C) devices and methods which can generally modify/disrupt the operation of imaging devices, but which do not offer an integrated method for detecting a specific imaging device; and (D) devices and methods which can detect and modify/disrupt the operation of an imaging device.
Within these four general groups, more-specific categories were identified and the relevant prior art was classified into these categories. This resulted in the following 20 categories within the four general groups: (A1) imaging device with cooperative privacy-preserving hardware or software; (B1) imaging device detection via (radio frequency) electromagnetic emission without integrated device disruption; (B2) imaging device detection via non-visible spectrum light emission without integrated device disruption; (B3) imaging device detection via general-spectrum light emission without integrated device disruption; (B4) imaging device detection via visual pattern recognition without integrated device disruption; (B5) imaging device detection via ambient light reflection without integrated device disruption; (B6) imaging device detection via various or miscellaneous methods without integrated device disruption; (C1) imaging device disruption via confounding display without integrated device detection; (C2) clothing or other wearable technology that emits light without integrated device detection; (C3) clothing or other wearable technology that reflects light without integrated device detection; (C4) nanoscale/microscale metamaterials and/or light guides without integrated device detection; (C5) imaging device disruption via (radio frequency) electromagnetic emission without integrated device detection; (C6) imaging device disruption via light emission without integrated device detection; (C7) imaging device disruption via various or miscellaneous methods without integrated device detection; (D1) imaging device detection and disruption by (radio frequency) electromagnetic emission; (D2) imaging device detection by (radio frequency) electromagnetic emission and disruption by light emission; (D3) imaging device detection by proximity detection and disruption by light emission; (D4) imaging device detection and disruption by light emission; (D5) imaging device detection by various methods and disruption by light emission; and (D6) imaging device detection and disruption by various or miscellaneous methods.
In this categorization and review of the prior art, approximately 170 examples of prior art have been identified and categorized. Writing up individual reviews for each of these 170 examples would have been prohibitively lengthy and less useful for the reader, who would have had to wade through these 170 individual reviews. It is more efficient for the reader to be presented with these 170 examples of prior art having been grouped into categories, wherein each of these general categories is then reviewed and discussed. For readers who wish to dig further into examples within a particular category or to modify the categorization scheme, some details on each example of the prior art are provided including the patent (application) title and date in addition to the inventors and patent (application) number. Overall, this categorization and discussion should provide a thorough and helpful review of the spectrum and limitations of the relevant prior art.
A1. Imaging Device with Cooperative Privacy-Preserving Hardware or Software
Devices and methods in this category appear to be able to detect and modify/disrupt the operation of an imaging device. However, they require the cooperation of the manufacturer and/or user of the imaging device in order to work. In an example, such art requires that an imaging device includes special hardware or software that enables modification or disruption of the operation of the device in certain locations or during certain circumstances. If all manufacturers of imaging devices agree to include such privacy-preserving hardware or software in their imaging devices, then this can be a great voluntary solution. However, if even some manufacturers do not include such privacy-preserving elements in their imaging devices or if some users find ways to circumvent the operation of such elements, then this optimistic solution will not come to pass. Of course, if all imaging device users exercise good judgment and courtesy in their use of imaging devices, then this can also be a great solution. However, the intrusive behavior of some paparazzi suggests otherwise. Also, even people of good faith have differing views on which settings and interpersonal interactions should remain private. Accordingly, pinning all of one's hopes on such a cooperative solution may be too optimistic.
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes U.S. Pat. No. 6,738,572 (Hunter, May 18, 2004, “Function Disabling System for a Camera Used in a Restricted Area”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,065,349 (Nath et al., Jun. 20, 2006, “Method for Automobile Safe Wireless Communications”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,414,529 (Boss et al., Aug. 19, 2008, “Disablement of Camera Functionality for a Portable Device”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,574,220 (Purkayastha et al., Aug. 11, 2009, “Method and Apparatus for Alerting a Target that it is Subject to Sensing and Restricting Access to Sensed Content Associated with the Target”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,294 (Boss et al., Feb. 2, 2010, “Disablement of Camera Functionality for a Portable Device”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,940,302 (Mehrotra et al., May 10, 2011, “Apparatus and Method for Privacy Protection of Data Collection in Pervasive Environments”); U.S. Pat. No. 8,154,578 (Kurtz et al., Apr. 10, 2012, “Multi-Camera Residential Communication System”); U.S. Pat. No. 8,194,127 (Kang et al., Jun. 5, 2012, “Method and Apparatus for Masking Surveillance Video Images for Privacy Protection”); U.S. Pat. No. 8,212,872 (Sablak, Jul. 3, 2012, “Transformable Privacy Mask for Video Camera Images”); U.S. Pat. No. 8,253,770 (Kurtz et al., Aug. 28, 2012, “Residential Video Communication System”); and U.S. Pat. No. 8,497,912 (Wun, Jul. 30, 2013, “System for Controlling Photographs Taken in a Proprietary Area”).
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category also includes U.S. Patent Applications: 20020106202 (Hunter, Aug. 8, 2002, “Portable Cameras”); 20040046871 (Ichikawa et al., Mar. 11, 2004, “Photographing Apparatus, Photographing Restrain System, and Photographing Restrain Release System”); 20040202382 (Pilu, Oct. 14, 2004, “Image Capture Method, Device and System”); 20050270371 (Sablak, Dec. 8, 2005, “Transformable Privacy Mask for Video Camera Images”); 20060064384 (Mehrotra et al., Mar. 23, 2006, “Apparatus and Method for Privacy Protection of Data Collection in Pervasive Environments”); 20070115356 (Kang et al., May 24, 2007, “Method and Apparatus for Masking Surveillance Video Images for Privacy Protection”); 20070116328 (Sablak et al., May 24, 2007, “Nudity Mask for Use in Displaying Video Camera Images”); 20080030588 (Boss et al., Feb. 7, 2008, “Disablement of Camera Functionality for a Portable Device”); 20080198159 (Liu et al., Aug. 21, 2008, “Method and Apparatus for Efficient and Flexible Surveillance Visualization with Context Sensitive Privacy Preserving and Power Lens Data Mining”); 20080267614 (Boss et al., Oct. 30, 2008, “Disablement of Camera Functionality for a Portable Device”); 20090012433 (Fernstrom et al., Jan. 8, 2009, “Method, Apparatus and System for Food Intake and Physical Activity Assessment”).
B1. Imaging Device Detection Via (Radio Frequency) Electromagnetic Emission without Integrated Device Disruption
This is the first category in the second group. Devices and methods in this group can detect an imaging device, but do not offer an integrated method of modifying or disrupting the imaging device. This first category in this group includes art that can detect an imaging device via electromagnetic emission (generally radio frequency emission) but which does not seem to offer an integrated method for modifying or disrupting the operation of an imaging device that is detected. For example, the distinction electromagnetic signature of a particular type of camera and/or phone with imaging functionality can be recognized. However, art in this category does not appear to include an integrated method for modifying or disrupting the operation of the camera or phone that is detected. The results of such detection can prompt an ad hoc response by humans, but this response is not an integral part of the device or method.
Such devices and methods for detecting cameras or phones can be very useful in movie theaters or in corporate R&D laboratories wherein there are readily-available humans to respond and wherein detection of the imaging device is the key problem. However, such devices and methods are less useful for responding to ubiquitous imaging devices in general environments. In the latter situation, a person whose privacy is to be protected may be well aware of a potentially privacy-eroding imaging device and have no need of being informed of its presence. The key issue for that person is what to do about the imaging device. Accordingly, devices and methods in this category are not ideal for a wearable device for disrupting unwelcome photography.
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes: U.S. Pat. No. 7,795,596 (Chowdhury, Sep. 14, 2010, “Cloaking Device Detection System”); and U.S. Pat. No. 8,384,555 (Rosen, Feb. 26, 2013, “Method and System for Automated Detection of Mobile Phone Usage”); and U.S. Patent Application 20050029456 (Eggers et al., Feb. 10, 2005, “Sensor Array with a Number of Types of Optical Sensors”).
B2. Imaging Device Detection Via Non-Visible Spectrum Light Emission without Integrated Device Disruption
Devices and methods in this category appear to be able to detect an imaging device via non-visible spectrum light emission, but they do not seem to offer an integrated method for modifying/disrupting the operation of the imaging device. Generally, such devices and methods use infrared light to detect an imaging device. In an example, devices and methods in this category can detect and recognize infrared light emitted from an imaging device that is part of an auto-focusing or motion capture function. In an example, such devices and methods in this category can project infrared light and detect retroreflected light from an interior or exterior surface of the imaging device.
Many of the examples of art in this category were designed to detect and flag unauthorized video recording of movies or performances in theaters. As was the case in the previous category in this group, such devices and methods do not appear to include an integrated method for modifying or disrupting the imaging device. Also, such devices and methods may be less effective in bright sunlight (which includes infrared light) than in dim theaters. Accordingly, devices and methods in this category do not provide a complete solution to the issue of potential privacy erosion by ubiquitous wearable imaging devices.
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes: U.S. Pat. No. 6,771,349 (Sitrick et al., Aug. 3, 2004, “Anti-Piracy Protection System and Methodology”); and U.S. Pat. No. 7,170,577 (Sitrick et al., Jan. 30, 2007, “Targeted Anti-Piracy System and Methodology”); and U.S. Patent Applications 20040061676 (Sitrick et al., Apr. 1, 2004, “Anti-Piracy Protection System and Methodology”); 20040062393 (Sitrick et al., Apr. 1, 2004, “Targeted Anti-Piracy System and Methodology”); and 20090268942 (Price, Oct. 29, 2009, “Methods and Apparatus for Detection of Motion Picture Piracy for Piracy Prevention”).
B3. Imaging Device Detection Via General-Spectrum Light Emission without Integrated Device Disruption
Similar to the previous category, devices and methods in this category detect an imaging device via light emission or reflection and do not seem to offer an integrated method for modifying or disrupting the imaging device. However, we have separated this category from the previous one because the previous one focuses on non-visible light and this one encompasses visible light. Some examples in this category use lasers. Much of the art in the previous category was designed for use in applications such as movies theaters in which visible light beams would be distracting to the customers, but much of the art in this present category is designed for use in military applications in which the use of visible laser beams can be acceptable. Some of the devices in this category use lasers to identify the location of optical elements in military applications. Although examples in this category do not include an integrated method of responding to detection of such optical elements, it is generally implied that some type of weapon (such as an exploding projectile or an energy beam) can be directed toward a hostile optical element in military applications. The use of a high-power laser to detect an imaging device and a weapon to disrupt such a device can be effective and appropriate in hostile military applications, but such technologies are neither safe nor appropriate for a civilian wearable device for disrupting unwelcome photography.
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes: U.S. Pat. No. 6,665,079 (Tocci et al., Dec. 16, 2003, “Method and Apparatus for Locating Electromagnetic Imaging and Detection Systems/Devices”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,282,695 (Weber et al., Oct. 16, 2007, “Active Search Sensor and a Method of Detection Using Non-Specular Reflections”); U.S. Pat. No. 8,184,175 (Mooradian et al., May 22, 2012, “System and Method for Detecting a Camera”); and U.S. Pat. No. 8,228,591 (Towers et al., Jul. 24, 2012, “Handheld Optics Detection System”); and U.S. Patent Applications 20060228003 (Silverstein, Oct. 12, 2006, “Method and Apparatus for Detection of Optical Elements”); and 20070034776 (Weber et al., Feb. 15, 2007, “Active Search Sensor and a Method of Detection Using Non-Specular Reflections”).
B4. Imaging Device Detection Via Visual Pattern Recognition without Integrated Device Disruption
Devices and methods in this category use image analysis and/or pattern recognition to detect an imaging device. Like other categories in this general group, such devices and methods do not provide an integrated method for modifying/disrupting the operation of an imaging device that is detected. In an example, such devices and methods can take pictures of a given scene at different times to detect and recognize the addition and/or movement of a mobile imaging device in such a scene. This method can be very useful for deployment at fixed location, such as a fixed-location surveillance camera. This method can be challenging for use in a wearable device when the person who wears the device is moving. Also, as was the case with other categories in this group, devices and methods in this category do not offer an integrated method for modifying or disrupting an imaging device that is detected. Accordingly, such art does not provide a complete solution for addressing potential privacy erosion from ubiquitous wearable imaging devices. Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes U.S. Pat. No. 6,088,468 (Ito et al., Jul. 11, 2000, “Method and Apparatus for Sensing Object Located within Visual Field of Imaging Device”).
B5. Imaging Device Detection Via Ambient Light Reflection without Integrated Device Disruption
Devices and methods in this category appear to be able to detect an imaging device using ambient light reflection. They do not offer an integrated method of responding to an imaging device which is detected. Devices and methods in this category appear to be uncommon Only one example was found in the prior art. In this example, reflected solar light is used to detect a target in a military application. As with other military applications, some type of weapon (such as an exploding projectile or an energy beam) can be directed toward a target which is detected. Although use of ambient light in any form is innovative, relying on ambient light alone is limiting. Even a passing cloud could limit use of such technology. For this reason, and because such technology does not offer an integrated method of disrupting an imaging device, this technology does not appear to provide a complete solution for a wearable device for disrupting unwelcome photography. Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes U.S. Pat. No. 4,836,672 (Naiman et al., Jun. 6, 1989, “Covert Optical System for Probing and Inhibiting Remote Targets”).
B6. Imaging Device Detection Via Various or Miscellaneous Methods without Integrated Device Disruption
This miscellaneous category was created for prior art which can detect an imaging device, which does not offer an integrated method of disrupting such a device, and which does not fall neatly into one of the above categories. Some of the art in this category uses unusual methods to detect an imaging device, such as releasing a chemical. It is unclear how appropriate it would be for a person to wear a technology that releases chemicals into the air. Some of the art in this category mentions a wide range of possible detection methods without focusing primarily on any one of them. For these reasons, and because art in this category does not offer an integrated method of disrupting an imaging device, art in this category does not appear to provide a complete solution for a wearable device for disrupting unwelcome photography. Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes U.S. Pat. No. 7,948,375 (Goldberg et al., May 24, 2011, “Method and Apparatus for Detecting Portable Electronic Device Functionality”).
C1. Imaging Device Disruption Via Confounding Display without Integrated Device Detection
This is the first category in the third general group. Devices and methods in the preceding (second) group were incomplete as a technological solution because they could detect imaging devices, but did not offer a way to modify or disrupt them. Devices and methods in this present (third) group are incomplete as a technological solution because they can generally modify or disrupt an imaging device, but cannot detect one.
Devices and methods in this first category in the third group modify/disrupt the ability of imaging devices to take pictures of movies or other specific content by embedding confounding material in that content and/or by specialized projection methods. In an example, confounding material can include infrared material that is invisible to the human eye but not to imaging devices. In an example, specialized projection methods can include varying the frame rate or luminosity of a movie or other projected content. Use of devices and methods in this first category is limited to disruption of photography of specific content. Devices and methods in this category can be useful for thwarting unauthorized recording of movies or other projected content, but are not well-suited for general use in a wearable device for disrupting unwelcome photography of a person.
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes: U.S. Pat. No. 6,674,561 (Ohnishi, et al., Jan. 6, 2004, “Optical State Modulation Method and System and Optical State Modulation Apparatus”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,950,532 (Schumann et al., Sep. 27, 2005, “Visual Copyright Protection”); and U.S. Pat. No. 7,221,759 (Nelson, May 22, 2007, “Projector with Enhanced Security Camcorder Defeat”); and U.S. Patent Applications 20040109562 (Ohnishi, Jun. 10, 2004, “Imaging Disturbing Method and System”); 20040150794 (Kurtz et al., Aug. 5, 2004, “Projector with Camcorder Defeat”); and 20040247120 (Yu et al., Dec. 9, 2004, “Methods and Apparatus for Digital Content Protection”); and WO 2000074366 (Mead, May 3, 2001, “Systems And Methods for Preventing Camcorder Piracy of Motion Picture Images”).
C2. Clothing or Other Wearable Technology that Emits Light without Integrated Device Detection
This category includes clothing or other wearable technology that emits light and has the potential to modify or disrupt the operation of imaging devices, but does not include a mechanism for detecting an imaging device. In the extreme, if one were to wear a 1,000-watt light bulb on one's head which shines continuously, this might be sufficient to disrupt being photographed (except perhaps in direct sunlight). However, this extreme example highlights the technical problems and high-energy requirements of art in this group which seeks to block photography without the ability to detect imaging devices. It is very energy-inefficient to emit high-energy light energy in all directions and at all times on the chance that there might be an imaging device somewhere nearby. In addition to its high energy requirements, such an approach can generate heat, be unsafe, and fail the “don't look too horrific” test. Devices and methods that can detect a nearby imaging device and only direct light energy in a particular direction at a particular time can be much more energy efficient, safe, and unobtrusive.
Most of the prior art in this example was not designed with photography-disruption in mind. Most of the prior art in this category involves incorporating lights (such as LEDS) into clothing or wearable accessories for safety, artistic, fashion, and/or basic illumination purposes. Incorporating a couple LEDs into clothing or wearable accessories can be useful for these purposes, but art in this category does not yet provide a good solution for a wearable device for disrupting unwelcome photography.
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes U.S. Pat. No. 4,164,008 (Miller et al., Aug. 7, 1979, “Illuminated Article of Clothing”); U.S. Pat. No. 4,283,127 (Rosenwinkel et al., Aug. 11, 1981, “Novelty Eyeglasses”); U.S. Pat. No. 4,959,760 (Wu, Sep. 5, 1990, “Lighting Equipment for an Eyeglasses”); U.S. Pat. No. 5,019,438 (Rapisarda, May 28, 1991, “Leather Article Decorated with Light Emitting Diodes”); U.S. Pat. No. 5,218,385 (Lii, Jun. 8, 1993, “Flash Light Eyeglasses with Hinge Switch”); U.S. Pat. No. 5,722,762 (Soll, Mar. 3, 1998, “Illumination Device for Mounting on the Head of a User”); U.S. Pat. No. 5,946,071 (Feldman, Aug. 31, 1999, “Eyeglasses with Illuminated Frame”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,106,130 (Harding, Aug. 22, 2000, “Personal Lighted and Reflective Safety System with Shoulder Straps for Pedestrians”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,461,015 (Welch, Oct. 8, 2002, “Portable Wearable Strobe Light”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,769,138 (Golle et al., Aug. 3, 2004, “Safety Vest and Other Clothing Articles”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,848,803 (Spongberg, Feb. 1, 2005, “Illuminated Halloween Costume”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,964,493 (Whitlock, Nov. 15, 2005, “Method and Apparatus for Adding Light Transmission to an Article of Clothing”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,966,668 (Cugini et al., Nov. 22, 2005, “Wearable Light Device with Optical Sensor”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,052,154 (Vanderschuit, May 30, 2006, “Lighted Hat”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,144,127 (Golle et al., Dec. 5, 2006, “Single Assembly EL Lighting for Garments”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,339 (Golle et al., Dec. 12, 2006, “EL Lighted Garment with Reduced Glow Up”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,229,183 (Golle et al., Jun. 12, 2007, “EL Lighting for Safety Orange Garments”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,229,184 (Golle et al., Jun. 12, 2007, “EL Lighted Articles”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,281,813 (Golle et al., Oct. 16, 2007, “EL Lighted Articles”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,568,813 (Barker, Aug. 4, 2009, “Chest Height Light Emission System”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,810,944 (Liao, Oct. 12, 2010, “Illuminated Cap Having Optical Fiber Strand and Removable Pouch”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,841,021 (Golle et al., Nov. 30, 2010, “EL Lighted Articles”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,922,349 (Hunnewell et al., Apr. 12, 2011, “Portable Light”); U.S. Pat. No. 8,235,524 (Waters, Aug. 7, 2012, “Illuminated Eyewear”); U.S. Pat. No. 8,388,164 (Waters, Mar. 5, 2013, “Hands-Free Lighting Devices”); and U.S. Pat. No. 8,444,266 (Waters, May 21, 2013, “Illuminated Eyewear”).
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes U.S. Patent Applications: 20060012974 (Su, Jan. 19, 2006, “Multifunctional Glasses”); 20060104043 (Golle et al., May 18, 2006, “EL Lighting for Garments with Four Wire Circuit”); 20060104044 (Golle et al., May 18, 2006, “EL Lighting for Safety Orange Garments”); 20060104048 (Golle et al., May 18, 2006, “EL Lighted Garment”); 20060104049 (Golle et al., May 18, 2006, “Single Assembly EL Lighting for Garments”); 20060104050 (Golle et al., May 18, 2006, “EL Lighted Garment with Reduced Glow Up”); 20060104051 (Golle et al., May 18, 2006, “Single Continuous Assembly EL Lighting for Garments”); 20060104052 (Golle et al., May 18, 2006, “EL Garment Lighting Using Flexible Circuit Elements”); 20060291194 (Golle et al., Dec. 28, 2006, “EL Lighted Articles”); 20070000011 (Golle et al., Jan. 4, 2007, “EL Lighted Articles”); 20070002557 (Golle et al., Jan. 4, 2007, “EL Lighted Articles”); 20070056075 (Golle et al., Mar. 15, 2007, “EL Lighted Articles”); 20080316736 (Hunnewell et al., Dec. 25, 2008, “Portable Light”); 20100188843 (Golle et al., Jul. 29, 2010, “EL Power Unit”); 20100208445 (Asvadi et al., Aug. 19, 2010, “Multi-Layer Woven Fabric Display”); 20100253501 (Gibson, Oct. 7, 2010, “Synchronized Luminated Safety Apparel”); 20110075399 (Yuan, Mar. 31, 2011, “Foldable Water-Proof Light Emitting Clothing”); 20110122646 (Bickham et al., May 26, 2011, “Optical Fiber Illumination Systems and Methods”); 20110157875 (Hunnewell et al., Jun. 30, 2011, “Portable Light”); 20110305035 (Bickham et al., Dec. 15, 2011, “Optical Fiber Illumination Systems and Methods”); 20120078393 (Kotb et al., Mar. 29, 2012, “Self-Contained, Wearable Light Controller with Wireless Communication Interface”); 20120099298 (Hsu, Apr. 26, 2012, “Light-Emitting Clothing Structure”); 20120140451 (Araujo et al., Jun. 7, 2012, “Wearable Lighting Device”); and 20120170295 (Ellenburg et al., Jul. 5, 2012, “Personal Lighting Device”).
C3. Clothing or Other Wearable Technology that Reflects Light without Integrated Device Detection
This category is similar to the preceding category, except that it includes clothing or other wearable technology that reflects light instead of emitting light. Like art in the prior category, art in this category does not include a way to detect a nearby imaging device. Also like art in the prior category, art in this category was generally not designed to disrupt photography. It was generally designed for safety or artistic purposes. Such technology can be very useful, for instance, in detecting people wearing such clothing in dark conditions. However, it is not consistently effective for disrupting unwelcome photography.
Under certain conditions, such as bright direct sunlight, clothing or accessories that reflect light in multiple angles can disrupt photography by nearby imaging devices without requiring detection of a specific imaging device. In an extreme example, if one were to fasten a rotating mirror-ball to one's head and to stand outside in direct sunlight, then such a contraption would probably disrupt people taking pictures of you from multiple angles. (They probably would be running away from you in any event.) However, such a device would stop working effectively when a cloud passes. Also, such a reflective device would probably not work well under dim lighting conditions. For these reasons, devices and methods in this category are not a good solution for a wearable device to disrupt unwelcome photography.
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes U.S. Patent Applications: 20070218267 (Votel, Sep. 20, 2007, “Reflective Composition and Garment”); 20080030856 (King, Feb. 7, 2008, “Breathable Retroreflective Material for High Visibility Safety Apparel and Reflective Apparel”); 20110292507 (Hsu, Dec. 1, 2011, “Structure, Manufacturing Method, and Applications of Reflective Material”); and 20120118380 (Leaback, May 17, 2012, “Solar Reflective Fibre”).
C4. Nanoscale/Microscale Metamaterials and/or Light Guides without Integrated Device Detection
This category focuses mainly on novel materials, including metamaterials, with special reflective and/or refractive properties. They can transmit light in novel ways. Early experiments with small-scale devices made from such materials suggest that these materials may someday enable cloaking devices which render an object invisible. For example, an object covered with metamaterial light guides may transmit the view from one side of an object and project this view out from the other side of the object. However, these experiments are at a very early stage with very small devices. There will be no cloaking of wizards or space ships any time soon. Further, it is highly unlikely that someone within such a cloaking device could see out of it. For these reasons, although devices and methods in this category are very interesting and have tremendous long-term potential, prior art in this category is not well-suited for use as a wearable device for disrupting unwelcome photography.
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes: U.S. Pat. No. 8,094,378 (Kildishev et al., Jan. 10, 2012, “Planar Lens”); and U.S. Pat. No. 8,111,968 (Chakmakjian et al., Feb. 7, 2012, “Optical Devices for Guiding Illumination”); and U.S. Patent Applications 20030174986 (Forbes et al., Sep. 18, 2003, “Hollow Core Photonic Bandgap Optical Fiber”); 20080165442 (Cai et al., Jul. 10, 2008, “System, Method and Apparatus for Cloaking”); 20100110559 (Cai et al., May 6, 2010, “System, Method and Apparatus for Cloaking”); 20100156573 (Smith et al., Jun. 24, 2010, “Metamaterials for Surfaces and Waveguides”); and 20130017348 (Sanada, Jan. 17, 2013, “Invisible Enclosure”).
C5. Imaging Device Disruption Via (Radio Frequency) Electromagnetic Emission without Integrated Device Detection
This category includes devices and methods which modify and/or disrupt the operation of an imaging device by emitting (radio frequency) electromagnetic energy. This category includes electromagnetic “jamming” devices which disrupt the operation of mobile electronic devices within a given area. If such devices are used in a legally-restricted area in which mobile electronic devices are not supposed to be in use, then this can be a satisfactory solution to the problem of unwelcome photography.
However, there are laws against radio frequency jamming in public (non restricted) areas in many jurisdictions. Also, there are safety issues with respect to possible disruption of medical devices, vehicles, or other electronic systems which may be disrupted by jamming radio frequency emissions. For these reasons, devices and methods which disrupt imaging devices by emitting (radio frequency) electromagnetic emissions are not a robust solution to the problem of unwelcome photography.
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes: U.S. Pat. No. 6,393,254 (Pousada et al., May 21, 2002, “Disabler for Mobile Communications”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,687,497 (Parvulescu et al., Feb. 3, 2004, “Method System and Structure for Disabling a Communication Device During the Occurrence of One or More Predetermined Conditions”); U.S. Pat. No. 8,073,438 (McNally, Dec. 6, 2011, “Method and System for Disabling a Wireless Communication Device”); U.S. Pat. No. 8,121,531 (Brown et al., Feb. 21, 2012, “Apparatus and Method for Selective Interfering with Wireless Communications Devices”); and U.S. Pat. No. 8,190,142 (McNally, May 29, 2012, “Method and System for Disabling a Wireless Communication Device”); and U.S. Patent Applications 20020039896 (Brown, Apr. 4, 2002, “Method and Apparatus for Disabling Mobile Telephones”); 20030219231 (Vernon, Nov. 27, 2003, “Method and System for the Prevention of Copyright Piracy”); and 20050007456 (Lee et al., Jan. 13, 2005, “System and Method for Restricting Use of Camera of a Mobile Terminal”).
C6. Imaging Device Disruption Via Light Emission without Integrated Device Detection
Devices and methods in this category can generally modify/disrupt the operation of imaging devices via light emission, but do not provide an integrated method for detecting an imaging device. Many examples of devices and methods in this category include content projection methods which project invisible (e.g. infrared) light in addition to visible light. The invisible (e.g. infrared) light is intended to disrupt the operation of any imaging devices which may be recording the content, without having to detect any specific imaging device.
However, such devices and methods only work if the imaging devices are vulnerable to disruption by the invisible (e.g. infrared) light and if the invisible (e.g. infrared) light is sufficiently powerful to disrupt the imaging devices. Not all imaging devices are vulnerable to disruption by infrared light. Also, there are limits to how much energy is available to power (continuous) infrared lights on a wearable device. Also, there can be safety issues. Finally, such methods work better in dim theaters than in bright sunlight. Accordingly, such methods are not ideal for use in a wearable device to disrupt unwelcome photography.
Other examples of devices and methods in this category are similar to light-emitting clothing, except that a light-emitting device is hand-held or mobile. Limitations for such devices are similar to those for light-emitting clothing. Without an automated or integrated method for detecting when and where there is an imaging device nearby, devices and methods in this category are generally energy inefficient. Unless aimed toward a specific imaging device by human action (such as having a human manually point a photography-disrupting device toward a camera), devices and methods in this category must direct light energy in multiple directions for extended periods of time to disrupt photography. This is very energy inefficient and potentially obtrusive as well.
It is possible to have a relatively energy-efficient device, such as a flashlight or laser pointer, which must be manually aimed toward a specific imaging device by human action. For example, someone can basically see a camera and just point a flashlight or laser pointer at the camera. One could possibly call a hand-held flashlight or laser pointer a “photography disrupting” device in this context, but the photography disruption process is so manual and so dependent on human action in this case that this label seems a stretch. In an absurd extreme, one could perhaps even call a hammer a “photography disrupting” device when a person sees a camera and uses the hammer to break it. However, this is clearly a stretch in use of the label. Ideally, a device should have at least some degree of automation (for either detecting an imaging device and/or for disrupting an imaging device) in order to really call it a “photography disrupting” device.
For these reasons, devices and methods in this category are not well-suited for use in a wearable device to disrupt unwelcome photography. Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes U.S. Pat. No. 6,018,374 (Wrobleski, Jan. 25, 2000, “Method and System for Preventing the Off Screen Copying of a Video or Film Presentation”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,351,208 (Kaszczak, Feb. 26, 2002, “Device for Preventing Detection of a Traffic Violation”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,559,883 (Fancher et al., May 6, 2003, “Movie Film Security System Utilizing Infrared Patterns”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,742,901 (Kimura et al., Jun. 1, 2004, “Imaging Prevention Method and System”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,773,119 (Kimura et al., Aug. 10, 2004, “Imaging Prevention Method and System”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,793,353 (Kimura et al., Sep. 21, 2004, “Imaging Prevention Method and System”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,827,454 (Kimura et al., Dec. 7, 2004, “Imaging Prevention Method and System”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,348,584 (Satou, Mar. 25, 2008, “Infrared Projector”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,934,836 (Ito, May 3, 2011, “Projector That Is Capable of Superimposing and Displaying a Visible Image and an Invisible Infrared Image”); U.S. Pat. No. 8,016,425 (Ito, Sep. 13, 2011, “Projector”); and U.S. Pat. No. 8,439,503 (Reichow et al., May 14, 2013, “Infrared Imaging Projection”); and U.S. Patent Applications 20020171813 (Kimura et al., Nov. 21, 2002, “Imaging Prevention Method and System”); 20040091110 (Barkans, May 13, 2004, “Copy Protected Display Screen”); 20040252835 (Odgers, Dec. 16, 2004, “Method for Spoiling Copies of a Theatrical Motion Picture Made Using a Video Camera and Recorder”); 20080174742 (Ito, Jul. 24, 2008, “Projector”); 20080180640 (Ito, Jul. 31, 2008, “Projector”); 20080320606 (Bishop, Dec. 25, 2008, “Device for Interfering with the Pirating of Movies and Artistic Mediums”); and 20120138821 (Joseph et al., Jun. 7, 2012, “Infrared Imaging Projection for Camera Blocking”).
C7. Imaging Device Disruption Via Various or Miscellaneous Methods without Integrated Device Detection
This miscellaneous category was created for prior art which can generally disrupt imaging devices, which does not provide a way to detect an imaging device, and which does not fall neatly into one of the above categories. In an example, a photography-disrupting device can emit electromagnetic signals which incorporate commands to an imaging device which disrupt operation of the imaging device. There are legal and technical challenges to intermittently or randomly issuing electromagnetic commands without an integrated method for detecting an imaging device. According, technology in this category is not well-suited for use in a wearable device for disrupting unwelcome photography.
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes: U.S. Pat. No. 6,868,229 (Balogh, Mar. 15, 2005, “Interfering with Illicit Recording Activity by Emitting Non-Visible Radiation”); and U.S. Patent Applications 20050008324 (Balogh, Jan. 13, 2005, “Interfering with Illicit Recording Activity by Emitting Non-Visible Radiation”); 20060159440 (Purkayastha et al., Jul. 20, 2006, “Method and Apparatus for Disrupting an Autofocusing Mechanism”); and 20080031596 (Balogh, Feb. 7, 2008, “Interfering with Illicit Recording Activity”).
D1. Imaging Device Detection and Disruption by (Radio Frequency) Electromagnetic Emission
This is the first category in the fourth group of this review. Devices and methods in the fourth group appear to be able (to at least some extent) to detect and disrupt the operation of nearby imaging devices. This is an improvement over devices and methods in the prior three groups which do not disclose an integrated method of imaging device detection and disruption. However, even prior art in this fourth group falls short of providing people with technology for disrupting unwelcome photography that is wearable, energy-efficient, safe, legal, effective in bright ambient light, affordable, and not-too-horrific in appearance. We now discuss six categories of devices and methods in the prior art within this fourth group. Examples of prior art in these categories have different limitations which cause them to fall short of being wearable, energy-efficient, safe, legal, effective in bright ambient light, affordable, and not-too-horrific in appearance.
The first category in this fourth group includes devices and methods in the prior art which can detect and modify/disrupt the operation of an imaging device via (radio frequency) electromagnetic energy emission. Devices in this present category are an improvement over devices in category C5 which must emit continuous electromagnetic “jamming” energy or command signals because they do not include the capability to detect imaging devices. At least devices in this present category need only emit electromagnetic jamming energy or command signals when an imaging device is detected nearby. This technology can be very useful in restricted areas where unauthorized photography by electronic devices is prohibited.
Nonetheless, there remain legal, safety, and technical limitations to devices and methods in this present category. For example, many jurisdictions do not allow the broadcasting of electromagnetic jamming signals in public areas. Also, transmission of electromagnetic jamming signals at a power sufficient to disrupt the operation of nearby imaging devices can also disrupt the operation of medical devices, causing a safety hazard. Further, the imaging operation of some types of imaging devices is not adversely affected by electromagnetic jamming. For these reasons, devices and methods in this category do not provide an image-disrupting technology that is wearable, energy-efficient, safe, legal, effective in bright ambient light, affordable, and not-too-horrific in appearance.
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes: U.S. Pat. No. 7,564,485 (Nath et al., Jul. 21, 2009, “Method for Deactivating an Image Capturing Device When Present in a Restricted or Prohibited Zone”); and U.S. Pat. No. 8,018,496 (Nath et al., Sep. 13, 2011, “Method for Deactivating an Image Capturing Device When Present in a Restricted or Prohibited Zone”); and U.S. Patent Applications 20100323608 (Sanhedrai et al., Dec. 23, 2010, “System and Method for Preventing Photography”).
D2. Imaging Device Detection by (Radio Frequency) Electromagnetic Emission and Disruption by Light Emission
Devices and methods in this category appear to be able to detect an imaging device via (radio frequency) electromagnetic emissions and to modify/disrupt the operation of the imaging device via emission of light energy. In an example, such devices can detect the unique electromagnetic signature of a nearby imaging device and disrupt the operation of that device by emitting light energy. This type of technology is promising, but thus far there does not appear to be a lot of prior art in this category. Some of the prior art in this category is designed for military applications, involving detection and destruction of hostile weaponry.
Use of such technology for civilian use in public areas depends on the ability of such technology to detect unique electromagnetic signatures from an imaging device and to direct sufficiently-powerful light energy in a sufficiently-focused manner toward the imaging device to disrupt its operation, without causing a safety hazard. Use of such technology depends on all imaging devices emitting distinctive electromagnetic signatures. Application of this technology to a wearable device also raises the issue of energy efficiency due to limited energy available from a wearable power source. A high-power laser would probably work in all ambient light conditions (including bright sunlight), but use of a high-power laser creates safety and energy-requirement issues in non-military, wearable applications. Use of non-collimated light may not work well in bright ambient light conditions (such as bright sunlight) and/or may require large amounts of energy from a wearable power source.
Overall, there are energy-requirement issues and safety issues that are concerns in civilian public applications that were not concerns in the development of large-scale devices for military purposes. Although one probably could ensure personal privacy by carrying around a high-power laser device which destroys any nearby imaging devices, this is not a constructive solution that would benefit our society. For these reasons, prior art in this category does not yet provide an image-disrupting technology that is wearable, energy-efficient, safe, legal, effective in bright ambient light, affordable, and not-too-horrific in appearance. Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes U.S. Pat. No. 7,768,444 (Rourk, Aug. 3, 2010, “Weapon Detection and Elimination System”) and U.S. Pat. No. 7,896,509 (Gallagher, Mar. 1, 2011, “Anti-Picture Device”).
D3. Imaging Device Detection by Proximity Detection and Disruption by Light Emission
Devices and methods in this category are similar to those in the previous category, except that motion sensors (or other methods for detecting proximity) are used to detect a possible imaging device instead of detecting electromagnetic emissions. This approach appears to be relatively uncommon Only one such example was found in the prior art. In this example, electromagnetic radiation (especially light energy) is projected in a randomly-varying manner toward an object or area which is not supposed to be photographed. In an example, light energy is randomly projected toward this object or area in a continuous manner. In an example, light energy is randomly projected toward this object or area when triggered by detection of something near the object or area. Random energy projection tends to be energy inefficient.
Technology in this category can be very useful for applications involving confidential displays in a fixed location, wherein one wishes to activate random photography-disrupting lighting from multiple angles whenever someone approaches the location. However, this technology is less well-suited for a device for disrupting unwelcome photography that is worn by a person who moves and interacts with multiple other people. For example, there would be substantial energy requirements for random photography-disrupting lighting from multiple angles that operates continuously or whenever something approaches the person wearing the device. Lack of an integrated method to detect a specific imaging device and to direct light toward that imaging device makes such an approach energy inefficient.
Although this is an interesting category of technology and prior art in this category can be very useful for selected applications, devices and methods in this category do not yet provide an image-disrupting technology that is wearable, energy-efficient, safe, legal, effective in bright ambient light, affordable, and not-too-horrific in appearance. Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes WO 2005125193 (Ehrlich et al., Dec. 29, 2005, “Method and System for Preventing the Photography of Certain Objects”).
D4. Imaging Device Detection and Disruption by Light Emission
Devices and methods in this category appear to detect and to modify/disrupt the operation of an imaging device via light emission. Some examples of prior art in this category use a counter-flash to disrupt flash photography. In these examples, a device detects a photography flash from an imaging device and generates a counter-flash to disrupt the picture. This can be useful for disrupting still photography in dim ambient light conditions, but is limited as a technology for disrupting video photography or photography in bright ambient light conditions. Also, light-aiming mechanisms are generally not very well developed in these examples of prior art.
Other examples of prior art in this category use high-power and/or collimated (laser) light to detect and destroy enemy optical and/or weapons systems in military applications. Although useful for military applications, such complex, high-energy, and destructive prior art is not well-suited for a wearable device for disrupting unwelcome photography. As we discussed in the context of previous categories, high-energy, large-scale, and destructive devices that are appropriate for use in military applications do not meet the wearability, energy-efficiency, and safety requirements of privacy-enhancing devices for civilian applications.
This category of technology has a lot of potential for possible future use for disrupting unwelcome photography. However, devices and methods in the prior art in this category do yet not disclose an image-disrupting technology that is wearable, energy-efficient, safe, legal, effective in bright ambient light, affordable, and not-too-horrific in appearance.
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes: U.S. Pat. No. 3,946,233 (Erben et al., Mar. 23, 1976, “Weapon System for the Detection of and Use Against Stationary or Moving Objects”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,111,364 (Davis et al., Aug. 29, 2000, “Method and Device to Inhibit the Flash Photography of a Vehicle”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,603,134 (Wild et al., Aug. 5, 2003, “Optical Detection System”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,937,163 (Caulfield et al., Aug. 30, 2005, “Apparatus and Method for Preventing a Picture from Being Taken by Flash Photography”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,271,898 (Weber, Sep. 18, 2007, “Method and System for Remote Sensing of Optical Instruments and Analysis Thereof”); U.S. Pat. No. 8,077,209 (Kamatani et al., Dec. 13, 2011, “Imaging Preventing Apparatus and Imaging Preventing Method”); U.S. Pat. No. 8,132,491 (Real et al., Mar. 13, 2012, “Method and Apparatus for Detecting and Disabling Optical Weapon Sight”); and U.S. Pat. No. 8,305,252 (Bradley, Nov. 6, 2012, “Countermeasure Device for a Mobile Tracking Device”); and U.S. Patent Applications 20040227634 (Caulfield et al., Nov. 18, 2004, “Apparatus and Method for Preventing a Picture from Being Taken by Flash Photography”); and 20070103552 (Patel et al., May 10, 2007, “Systems and Methods for Disabling Recording Features of Cameras”).
D5. Imaging Device Detection by Various Methods and Disruption by Light Emission
Devices and methods in this category are similar to those in the previous category, except that they include a greater variety of methods to detect imaging devices, not just light-based detection methods. Some of the art mentions a variety of methods, but does not provide detailed explanations of how each method would be implemented. In an example, some of the methods mentioned include: visually observing an individual, using a viewfinder, using a motion detector, using night vision, using a heat sensor, and using a surveillance camera. Although some devices and methods in the prior art in this category are creative and incorporate a broader range of imaging device detection methods than prior art in the previous category, prior art in this category has similar limitations when it comes to imaging device disruption. Devices and methods in the prior art in this category do yet not disclose an image-disrupting technology that is wearable, energy-efficient, safe, legal, effective in bright ambient light, affordable, and not-too-horrific in appearance.
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes: U.S. Pat. No. 8,157,396 (Smith et al., Apr. 17, 2012, “Inhibiting Unwanted Photography and Video Recording”); and U.S. Patent Applications 20100149782 (Smith et al., Jun. 17, 2010, “Inhibiting Unwanted Photography and Video Recording”); and 20120056546 (Harvey, Mar. 8, 2012, “Anti-Paparazzi/Identity Protection System”).
D6. Imaging Device Detection and Disruption by Various or Miscellaneous Methods
This miscellaneous category was created for prior art which can, at least to some extent, detect and disrupt imaging devices, but which does not does not fall neatly into one of the above categories. Some examples of prior art in this miscellaneous category seek to stop unauthorized photography by: halting a playing medium; emitting de-focusing or thwarting signals; or transmitting commands that cause an imaging device to stop, rewind, or eject a recoding medium. Although some devices and methods in this category are very creative, prior art in this category does not yet disclose an image-disrupting technology that is wearable, energy-efficient, safe, legal, effective in bright ambient light, affordable, and not-too-horrific in appearance.
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category includes U.S. Pat. No. 6,861,640 (Light et al., Mar. 1, 2005, “Detecting and Thwarting Imaging Systems at Theatrical Performances”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,977,366 (Light et al., Dec. 20, 2005, “Detecting and Thwarting Imaging Systems at Theatrical Performances”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,020,383 (Light et al., Mar. 28, 2006, “Detecting and Thwarting Imaging Systems at Theatrical Performances”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,326,911 (Light et al., Feb. 5, 2008, “Detecting and Thwarting Content Signals Originating from Theatrical Performances”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,332,706 (Light et al., Feb. 19, 2008, “Detecting and Thwarting Imaging Systems at Theatrical Performances”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,755,025 (Light et al., Jul. 13, 2010, “Detecting and Thwarting Content Signals Originating from Theatrical Performances”); and U.S. Pat. No. 8,148,673 (Light et al., Apr. 3, 2012, “Detecting and Thwarting Content Signals Originating from Theatrical Performances”).
Prior art that appears to be best classified into this category also includes U.S. Patent Applications: 20040094697 (Light et al., May 20, 2004, “Detecting and Thwarting Imaging Systems at Theatrical Performances”); 20040182996 (Light et al., Sep. 23, 2004, “Detecting and Thwarting Imaging Systems at Theatrical Performances”); 20050194522 (Light, Sep. 8, 2005, “Detecting and Thwarting Imaging Systems at Theatrical Performances”); 20050242273 (Light et al., Nov. 3, 2005, “Detecting and Thwarting Imaging Systems at Theatrical Performances”); 20060033017 (Light et al., Feb. 16, 2006, “Detecting and Thwarting Content Signals Originating From Theatrical Performances”); 20080081552 (Light et al., Apr. 3, 2008, “Detecting and Thwarting Content Signals Originating from Theatrical Performances”); and 20100303449 (Light et al., Dec. 2, 2010, “Detecting and Thwarting Content Signals Originating from Theatrical Performances”).